Appeal No. 97-1647 Page 13
Application No. 08/321,255
The examiner begins his rejection of claims 2 and 3 by
admitting that “Owe et al. in view of Murata et al. does not
disclose to rotate [sic] the disc at a slower speed to
calibrate the flexure arm.” (Final Rejection at 3.) He
opines, “Buettner et al. teaches to calibrate [sic] the fly
height at various speeds disc rotation [sic] in the same field
of endeavor for the purpose of eliminating the heads from
sliding on the disk for periods of time ....” (Id.) The
examiner ends the rejection by concluding that it would have
been obvious “to calibrate the fly height at various speeds
disc rotation [sic] as taught by Buettner et al. on the system
of Owe et al. in view of Murata et al. in order to eliminate
the heads from sliding on the disk since it is shown that the
fly height is lower at slower speeds of rotation.” (Id. at
4.)
In response, the appellants assert, “there is no
suggestion in Buettner et al., or in any of the other cited
references, to bend the spring loaded flexure arm while the
disc is rotated at a reduced rate of rotation to achieve the
desired fly height.” (Appeal Br. at 12.)
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007